Tim Hibbard enters the never ending argument on full vs part feeds and writes:
“I think it is great that good bloggers get rewarded by ad revenue, but I don’t think the money should drive you to blog. To me, a good blogger shares their knowledge in an entertaining way. Worry about entertaining and educating your readers, the money will be on it’s way.”
Right….and now I’m a full time blogger exactly how am I suppose to make a living if no one visits my blogs because they are all reading them in Bloglines…in full? Perhaps the magical blogging money tree will pay my mortgage?
He also quotes Mike at Simplenomics writing at Duct Tape Marketing:
“”being concerned about your readers sounds noble, but it’s really not…full feeds are really just a slow death for a blog”
Mike also writes on his own blog:
“I’€™m pretty sure I’€™m right about the fact that without clicking thru to the page, you’€™ll never share in the full experience a blogger has to give you”
both fine points. And there is also comments by Mike about “enabling the conversation”, one of the catch phrases that seems to have swept the blogosphere in 2006. I’ve written before about how I use feeds: even full feeds. For each subject area I glance through my feeds on that topic and clicking the scroll wheel on the article I open them in background tabs in Firefox. When I’m finished with Bloglines I then read the posts I want to read. I also read the comments as well, because most good bloggers will tell you that “the conversation”, in this case comments, can be just as interesting, and at times even more interesting that the post itself. Full feeds = limiting the conversation, stuffing bloggermetrics (you don’t know people are reading you if they don’t visit the site), and ruining the chance of many bloggers to earn some revenue to support their endeavours as well.
We’ll that’s my two bobs worth. Feel free to disagree..or agree, and make sure you vote at our new poll on the subject in the nav bars to the right.